why so much faith in the bible?

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Archemetis, Apr 9, 2007.

  1. Archemetis

    Archemetis Senior Member

    there were numerous other books and scriptures excluded from the official bible, and sure many of them were potentially bogus, though many were found to be as authentic as those books that made it into the bible, but were not convinient, for whatever reason. (often the story wouldnt flow as smoothly with the added books) it was a pick and choose thing when the bible was cannonized. so what im asking is why do you have so much faith in the opinions of other men? why so much faith in the cannonized texts and not others?

    what about the book of enoch? the testament of solomon? the acts of peter? the gosple of james? ect. ect. ect. there are so many.

    i find it interesting that you cant even read and fully understand the bible without having read the book of enoch. there are so many verses in the bible that havent enough background information to understand without the book of enoch...yet the book of enoch is apocriphal...

    iv been told many times that the bible is teh undisputed word of god, yet the books were written by men, many with their own agendas in mind, and they were sorted and cannonized by men, who obviously had their own agendas in mind, these books were re-written and "translated" by men with their own agendas in mind....how can you say these texts are still authentic and unaltered after all this time?

    what makes the king james version more authentic than the ethiopian version?
  2. hippie_chick666

    hippie_chick666 Senior Member

    Very good points.

    Peace and love
  3. JesusDiedForU

    JesusDiedForU Banned

    The cannonicity of the Bible followed strict guidelines in accepting and rejecting in the make up of the Bible. There are good reasons why certain books were not put into the Bible... it is not based on personal preference.
  4. Archemetis

    Archemetis Senior Member

    why do you think the book of enoch was rejected?
  5. It was a mess after the first 100 years after Christs death and as many versions as there were copies...the problems were all in the beginning so speak.
    "The Good News" never came out
  6. Archemetis

    Archemetis Senior Member

    i guess what im getting at is that there are books in the bible that refrence other books that were not cannonized. the book of enoch is a good example, or the book of jubilees. some of the men who originally wrote the the books that are now in the bible obviously knew these books and made refrences to them. they wouldnt do that if they didnt believe these books to be authentic.
  7. Sign Related

    Sign Related The Don Killuminati

    Both John books are bogus.
  8. Archemetis

    Archemetis Senior Member

    thats a matter of opinion. much like its my opinion all the books are bogus. what im wondering is why christians believe so whole heartedly in the opinions of those who sorted out the books and cannonized the bible. why not read all sacred texts and come to ones own conclusion?

    theres truth in all kinds of sacred texts as well as nonsence in most, imo.
  9. MrRee

    MrRee Senior Member

    Because Emperor (Caesar) Constantine alone chose who would attend the Council of Nicea in AD 325 during which the bible was assembled, and Constantine was the dictator of the Roman world which encompassed all of the Old World of the time, essentially making him World Dictator, the resultant work is reflective of Constantine's viewpoint based upon any number of personal preferences. That Constantine was a christian is highly questionable, yet christians wholly accept this viewpoint because it is the root and crux of their belief system religion founded upon Constantine's assembly of scripts into the bible as we know it. To question the council of Nicea and Constantine is to question the foundation point of the christian religion, so christians must exist in a state of denial so as to preserve their adopted belief ~ a state of being they explain away as "faith". A quick check on Constantine's credentials shows what kind of man he was - a cold blooded murderer. So who at the time would dare to question him?
    Christians use the same convoluted logic - cognitive dissonance - to turn Saul the Roman spy and murderer into a good christian St. Paul overnight - based solely on Saul's word and in the absence of any witness.
    Because of this anomolous contradiction, Christians have to justify the authenticity of the man, the occasion, and the work in question. The authors AND the work are highly questionable, but christians must maintain their faith in the face of these questionable people and events, so they busily invent ways to reconcile falsity by super-imposing their own rationale upon the occasions and people in question and call it 'fact', often disguised as empty rhetorical statements such as
    that are designed to give an air of false authority on the subject but reveal vacuous absences such as *what where these "strict guidelines" that were followed? *who compiled them? * what are these "good reasons" for inclusion/rejection of works? * who compiled the "good reasons"? * How is it known that "personal preference" had no bearing? * What historical authority is being cited for this statement? * where is it stated that the assembled letters and scripts contained in the bible + NT is the undisputed word of god?
    If the bible+NT and subsequent christian religion was based upon substantial fact, there would be nothing to question, yet questions prevail. This is not because of personally driven motives, agenda's, or any hysterical conspiracy theory, but because the glaring absence of facts is inevitably and always conveniently covered over and embellished by profusions of deceitful manipulations disguised as explanations such as the example cited above.

    Know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.
  10. Alsharad

    Alsharad Member

    I apologize for the length of this post. [​IMG]

    With all due respect MrRee, you really need to check your sources. The council of nicea had *nothing* to do with the formation of the New Testament/Bible. In fact, of the 20 canons that came from Nicea, not a single one deals with the books of scripture. Nicea was convened to debate whether Christ was a created being or not. There were other councils that *did* discuss the canon of scripture, but you didn't even mention those.

    As an overall response to the question, though, there are several reasons that some books made it in and some didn't. Keep in mind that there was no single council that stated "this is what we are going to use" and then forced it on the people. In fact, the process was more natural than that. The councils convened and they said "this is what my church uses and considers to be scripture." What was discovered is that the VAST majority of the New Testament was considered scripture by the various churches with little to no communication between them. Books that were considered scripture: The Gospels and the Pauline letters. These received universal and near unanimous acceptance before any councils had been convened. Other books received varying degrees of attention. Books like Enoch and Revelation swayed in an out of popularity. However, for a book to be included in the canon, it had to be already in use by the majority of the independent churches.

    The criteria for inclusion into canon
    Inspiration was just one of many aspects of the life of the church, and one could regularly speak and write under inspiration, as Jerome did
    a. Jude 9 quotes the Testament of Moses.
    b. Paul quotes Menander, Epimenedes, and other Greek authors
    c. Romans 1:24-32 – quotes Wisdom of Solomon 14:22-31
    d. Romans 5:12-21 – quotes Wisdom 2:23-24
    There is no question that the early church believed that its scriptures were inspired by God, but...the canonical scriptures were not the only ancient literature that was believed to be inspired by God. Inspiration was not exactly a criterion of canonicity, but a corollary of it: something that was inspired COULD be canonical, but something NOT inspired could NEVER be canonical.

    Rule of Faith:
    The rule of faith criteria states that nothing shall be accepted which is at variance with accepted scriptures or that teaches false doctrine. To be accepted into the canon, a book must conform with the community's rule of faith. In short, a work couldn't contradict what they believed. This criteria was used for apocryphal and fringe books. This criteria was NOT applied to the Gospels nor to the Pauline letters.

    Church Usage:
    No book could be canonized unless the church used it!
    Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

    Apostolic Authority:
    The primary consideration for acceptance into canon.
    A work must have been authored by an Apostle or an immediate follower of an Apostle. This is a sensible idea: the persons most qualified to write about a great teacher or leader, whether it be Jesus, Martin Luther King, or Gandhi, are usually either:
    a. family (as with James and Jude, who by virtue of their association with Jesus and decision to follow Him became de facto Apostles)
    b. immediate followers (the Apostles)
    c. immediate followers of those followers (Mark, Luke).

    Regarding the 7 fringe books:
    The last seven books gained access to the canon only after considerable debate over whether they could be attributed to the persons that bear their names (or in the case of Hebrews, to Paul or one of his close companions such as Barnabas, Luke or Apollos)

    All the other books failed to be included because they didn't meet the above criteria (some barely failing after much debate). There are varying published canons from the early church, but as open communication became more possible and the exchange/debate of ideas became more regular, the independent churches eventually reached a consensus.

    For a far more detailed explanation and exposition on this subject, I recommend:
    The Canon of the New Testament:
    Its Origin, Development, and Significance

    by Bruce Metzger
    Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987.
    ISBN: 0198269544
  11. MrRee

    MrRee Senior Member

    Perhaps a little flexibility in understanding is necessary ~
    The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[2] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[2] With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which were intended to become guidelines for doctrinal orthodoxy and a source of unity for the whole of Christendom — a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.

    Because it was constantine who, 6 years after Nicea in 331, ordered the production & distribution of 50 copies of what is the source of the current bible (possibly codex's sinaiticus & vaticanus), Constantine is solely responsible for * canonising the basis of christian ideology, * mass production and distribution of texts * subsequent dogma's of christian belief & church behaviour. Therefore, no constantine, no christian religion, bible, or church as now exists.
  12. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Why faith, because religion is the easy way out, it’s a good nights sleep. I’m going to put all my faith in God, I’m going to drive my earth raper of an SUV straight to heaven blissfully unaware that my physical self-righteous body will slowly suffocate over the sky rocketing CO2 emissions. Scientists are evil liars, there is no global warming. The only plan is God’s plan!!
  13. andy2be4real

    andy2be4real Member

    It's hard for me (and many of us) to accept the Bible from a literal, fundamentalist point of view. But I think that much of it makes real sense if seen as allegory, metaphor, and symbolism. In fact, it seems more beautiful that way.
  14. Alsharad

    Alsharad Member

    You are making a broad leap from the Nicean council to the "canonization". There just isn't a link between the two that is supported by historical documentation. Nicea wasn't even about the bible or the texts to be used!

    I am not sure that you have really looked any farther than a wikipedia article to research this subject. Or, if you have, you are relying on people without the proper credentials. To say that Constantine was solely responsible for the canonization is completely ludicrous. Please provide the historical support for your assertion (peer reviewed books and articles would be best). You have completely ignored Marcion's influence (as well as the influence of other heretics) and the influence of Christian persecution on the formation of canon.

    You also state that he is responsible for the source of the current bible. Please provide your source. It seems that you haven't accounted for disagreements after the fact and... even more alarming... that there was agreement on the vast majority of the texts before and after Constantine. In fact, you haven't even addressed that the issue of the canon wasn't settled until the middle ages.

    I am not saying that Constantine wasn't a part of it the formation of canon, but to say that he is some sort of mastermind that took control of Christianity and spun new "orthodox" view out of whole cloth is completely unsupported.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice